Random Photos from Road Trip

Follow the Link

Road Trip - Day 1

Drove from Toronto to Toledo Ohio. Michigan has some of the most poorly maintained highways I'v seen, and Ohio rubs it in by having perfect highway the second the interstate passes the border.

A debate

It can be found here

Watch the whole thing

This is incredible. I'll be passing through this area for my Florida trip.

Skill or Luck?

Presidential Candidate Series - John McCain

At a recent town hall style meeting someone asked McCain whether he was too old and if he was worried he might die in office. McCain appropriately enough responded, "Thanks for the question you little jerk." Which brings me to his chances of getting the nomination and getting elected president.

That he needs a miracle is actually a bit sad. His breadth of personal experience and strength of character is far and away above any of the other candidates. As a prisoner of war in Vietnam he was tortured brutally, (including having both his shoulders dislocated). Yet when his father became the Commander of American forces in the pacific, and McCain was given a chance at early release he refused, rather than face the dishonor of abandoning his fellow prisoners.

Yet knowing personally the complete depth of the horrors of war, his position on Iran is hawkish. I don't think any of the other candidates were as clear as McCain, when he sang "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran."

Understanding John McCain

Actually its more broadly understanding the warrior ethos perhaps.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200708u/kaplan-vietnam

Alligators Aren't Green

This is actually a post about Iraq from the reader-financed blogger thats been embedded over there on and off for three years now. If you want to know how it ties in with Alligators, you'll have to follow the link.

Presidential Candidates

I'm going to be doing a series of blog posts on the American Presidential candidates. First up is Rudy Giuliani with his hatred of ferrets. Thats right, he hates ferrets. In fact he tried to have them banned in New York, and here is a quote from a call in show during that time:

"I think you have totally and absolutely misinterpreted the law, because there's something deranged about you. The excessive concern that you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist. Not with me. I'm not insulting you. I'm being honest with you. Maybe no one in your life has ever been honest with you. This conversation is over, David. Thank you. There is something really, really, very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. I know you feel insulted by that, but I'm being honest with you.

"This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness. I'm sorry. That's my opinion. You don't have to accept it. There are probably very few people who would be as honest with you about that. But you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and have him help you with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to weasels."

Flushing books down toilets. Crime or not?

Christopher Hitchens:

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the “moderate” imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of “hate crime,” I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

The new Harry Potter Book Launch

Crazy harry potter launch party on Friday night. A whole section of Bay street got closed off outside the Indigo/Chapters, and they had a DJ playing tunes inside the store, with the occasional chants of "go harry, go harry". Jacquie and I went down, and met up with Debs. Oh, and its not Hermony or Hermione but Hermini.

Something my friends will appreciate

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/21/maybe-google-news-needs-a-little-tweaking/

1997 Mazda Millenia S Review

I owned a Mazda Millenia S 1997 from 160,000 km to almost 240,000 km. The Mazda Millenia S is a mid-luxury supercharged compact 'sports sedan'. The Millenia S engine (when working properly) was its best feature. Acceleration from 0-60 was about 7 seconds, but you could really feel the raw power of the supercharger when it kicked in. On the downside, inexplicably on some days it seemed to have more kick than on other days. Also, the air conditioning sapped way too much power from the engine, changing the entire driving dynamics. Also a 4 speed auto transmission with no tiptronic was a disappointment. In some situations it was difficult to get the car to kick down a gear.

The comfort of the car was also excellent. Good quality leather seats (if a bit worn by the time the car got to me), and the car did a decent job over rough pavement with its way too soft suspension.

Handling on the other hand was horrible. Go around a corner, and the car tilted like a boat. This was a sports sedan in name only. The brakes, while decent were not terrific for spirited driving. The suspension was tuned for comfort and was too squishy.

Reliability was atrocious. The car broke down routinely with the oddest problems, I especially remember the TCS light blinking, which put the transmission into safe mode, and the supercharger (probably) problems near the end, plus tons of other stuff.

Its a bad idea to own one of these cars with high kilometers. They all die when the supercharger seals weaken and leak oil into the engine. This will eventually kill your catalytic (making passing emissions difficult) then dirty your spark plugs etc, then of course the supercharger itself might die.

Best News Headline EVER

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON"

Global Climate Change.

Is this an inconvenient truth for the global warming crowd? Are people open minded enough to be swayed by science or has global warming become dogma?

Tug of war between Lions and a Crocodile

Spooky Action at a Distance

Quantum Computers when they are finally perfected in the next 20 years or so, will be able to crack todays commonly used cryptography, so for example everything you do on the internet would then be susceptible to someone intercepting and decrypting it.

Quantum cryptography, which could replace current cryptography, has distance limits, and is based on a property of quantum mechanics that Albert Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance".

New Record for Quantum Cryptography: Researchers take a big step toward their goal of spy-proof communications via satellites. Link

Space Exploration

A list of the top 10 technologies that are needed to speed up space exploration.

LTC Doug Crissman arrests General Hamid in Iraq

This one article about LTC Doug Crissman arresting General Hamid in Hit will tell you more about the dynamic of what is going on in Iraq then any number of news stories. It is by Michael Yon an independant blogger/reporter. He does not work for any news organization. He is exclusively funded and paid by bloggers like you or I who hit his tip jar. When you're done reading the story here you can read an email from LTC Doug Crissman on the aftermath here.

Segregation or Apartheid?

LA Times writer Megan K. Stack in Saudi Arabia.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — THE hem of my heavy Islamic cloak trailed over floors that glistened like ice. I walked faster, my eyes fixed on a familiar, green icon. I hadn't seen a Starbucks in months, but there it was, tucked into a corner of a fancy shopping mall in the Saudi capital. After all those bitter little cups of sludgy Arabic coffee, here at last was an improbable snippet of home — caffeinated, comforting, American.

I wandered into the shop, filling my lungs with the rich wafts of coffee. The man behind the counter gave me a bemused look; his eyes flickered. I asked for a latte. He shrugged, the milk steamer whined, and he handed over the brimming paper cup. I turned my back on his uneasy face.

Crossing the cafe, I felt the hard stares of Saudi men. A few of them stopped talking as I walked by and watched me pass. Them, too, I ignored. Finally, coffee in hand, I sank into the sumptuous lap of an overstuffed armchair.

"Excuse me," hissed the voice in my ear. "You can't sit here." The man from the counter had appeared at my elbow. He was glaring.

"Excuse me?" I blinked a few times.

"Emmm," he drew his discomfort into a long syllable, his brows knitted. "You cannot stay here."

"What? Uh … why?"

Then he said it: "Men only."

He didn't tell me what I would learn later: Starbucks had another, unmarked door around back that led to a smaller espresso bar, and a handful of tables smothered by curtains. That was the "family" section. As a woman, that's where I belonged. I had no right to mix with male customers or sit in plain view of passing shoppers. Like the segregated South of a bygone United States, today's Saudi Arabia shunts half the population into separate, inferior and usually invisible spaces.

At that moment, there was only one thing to do. I stood up. From the depths of armchairs, men in their white robes and red-checked kaffiyehs stared impassively over their mugs. I felt blood rushing to my face. I dropped my eyes, and immediately wished I hadn't. Snatching up the skirts of my robe to keep from stumbling, I walked out of the store and into the clatter of the shopping mall.

Read the rest here.
Update: to read without registration use this link and follow the google news link to read the story.

Makes me wonder how politically correct or real the movie "The Kingdom" will be.

All facts on this blog are correct

All information posted on this blog is factually correct. It goes through a rigorous screening process evaluating:

• does this information look true?
• do we care if it looks true?
• do we care enough to edit wikipedia to make it true?

Greg asked me why Handguns should be legal.

Right-to-Carry 2007

Only two states—Wisconsin and Illinois—prohibit carrying firearms for protection • Nebraska is the most recent RTC state. In 2006, Nebraska’s RTC law was signed by Gov. Dave Heineman (R), Kansas’ Senate and House overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ (D) veto of an RTC bill by votes of 30-10 and 91-33, respectively, and the Ohio Senate and House overrode then-Gov. Bob Taft’s (R) veto of a bill that improves the state’s 2004 RTC law, by votes of 21-12 and 71-21, respectively. • Other recent RTC initiatives. In January 2006, Wisconsin’s Senate voted 23-10 to override Gov. Jim Doyle’s (D) veto of RTC; the Assembly fell two votes short, voting 64-34. In Jan. 2004, Ohio then-Gov. Bob Taft (R) signed RTC into law and New Mexico’s Supreme Court upheld a 2003 RTC law. Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri adopted RTC in 2003, the latter by overriding Gov. Bob Holden’s (D) veto. • Types of RTC laws. There are 40 RTC states: 36 have “shall issue” laws, which require that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa have fairly-administered “discretionary-issue” carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. (Alaska, which has a shall-issue provision for purposes of permit-reciprocity with other states, adopted a no-permit-required law in 2003.) Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems; two prohibit carrying altogether. Click on map for larger graphic. • The right to self-defense is a fundamental right. The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. RTC laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individual citizens to carry firearms for protection. • More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.1 (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.2) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,3 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.4 • RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”5 • False predictions. Dave Kopel has written, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”6 A article related to Michigan’s RTC law said, “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”7 • RTC permit-holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, but revoked only 157 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.8 Background. Before 1987, there were 10 RTC states. Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington had “shall issue” permit laws. Alabama and Connecticut had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia’s “shall issue” law was interpreted as discretionary in some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. Other states had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems or prohibited carrying altogether. These laws remain in effect. In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has since become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and news media interests predicted vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner. The predictions proved false. Through 1992, Florida’s murder rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%; thereafter, murder decreased both nationally and in Florida.9 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted that “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”10 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.” • 29 new RTC states since 1987. Of these, 21 previously prohibited carrying; nine (indicated with an asterisk, below) had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems. 1989: Oregon, Penna. (Phila. included in 1995), and West Virginia (in Georgia a judicial ruling enforced “shall issue” statewide); 1990: Idaho and Mississippi; 1991: Montana; 1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; Iowa* (by fairly administering its discretionary-issue system), New Mexico, Minnesota* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas, Nebraska. Click To Play Right to Carry, 2005 Citizens can defend themselves. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck found, “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”11 In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found that guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually.12 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,” who wanted to “eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police,” said, “The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.”13 A study for the Dept. of Justice found that 34% of felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and 40% of felons have not committed crimes, fearing potential victims were armed.14 The right to self-defense has been recognized for centuries. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right;” English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights recognized “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as intended “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,” the first of which is “personal security.”15 Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King’s Bench, wrote in the 18th century, “The right of self-defense. . . is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.”16 The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and concluded that when attacked a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” The laws of all states and the constitutions of 44 states recognize the right to armed self-defense. In the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986), Congress stated that it did not intend to “place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to . . . personal protection, or any other lawful activity.” Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” National RTC reciprocity. H.R. 4547, by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), proposes a federal law stating that any person with a valid state-issued carry permit may carry in any other state, as follows: In a state that issues carry permits, its laws would apply. In a state that does not issue permits, a federal standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. Nonsense from Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.). Sarah Brady: “the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes;” former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields: “[If attacked] put up no defense - give them what they want;” Brady Center’s Dennis Henigan: self-defense is “not a federally guaranteed constitutional right.”17 In Jan. 1999, HCI claimed that between 1992-1997 violent crime rates declined less in RTC states than in other states.18 (HCI previously claimed RTC caused crime to rise.) HCI erred in categorizing states as RTC states based upon their having RTC laws in 1997, since only 17 of those 31 states had RTC in 1992. HCI calculated crime trends from 1992 to underrepresent the impact of RTC laws; by 1992 many states had RTC for many years and already experienced decreases in crime. HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as “restrictive” states, doing so presumably because both states had decreases in crime. HCI also credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states. But states that have restrictive carry laws have had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, and did so due to factors unrelated to guns. Nonsense from Violence Policy Center: In 1995, VPC claimed Florida’s RTC law “puts guns into the hands of criminals.”19 The claim was false, since the law permits a person to carry, not acquire, a firearm. VPC claimed “criminals do apply for concealed carry licenses,” without noting that such applications are rejected. Contradicting itself, VPC noted that criminals had requested that their rejected applications be reconsidered. “To set the record straight,” Florida Secy. of State, Sandra B. Mortham, said, “As of November 30, 1995, the Department had denied 723 applications due to criminal history. The fact that these 723 individuals did not receive a license clearly indicates that the process is working.” She added, “the majority of concealed weapon or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self-defense.”20 In 2001, VPC claimed there are more women murdered with handguns than criminals killed by in self-defense.21 The value of handguns for self-defense is not measured by how many criminals are killed, however. More important is how often people use handguns to prevent crimes and how often criminals do not attack for fear the potential victim is armed. Also, VPC undercounted the number of criminals killed in self-defense by counting only those noted in police reports, thus excluding defensive homicides later determined to have been appropriate. McDowell math: In March 1995, anti-gun researcher David McDowell claimed that gun homicide rates increased in Miami, Jacksonville and Tampa after Florida’s 1987 RTC law.22 But homicide rates fell 10%, 18% and 20%, respectively, in those metro areas from 1987 until 1993, the most recent data at the time.23 To show an increase, McDowell calculated Jacksonville and Tampa trends from the early 1970s, when rates were lower than in 1993, but calculated Miami’s from 1983, since rates before 1983 were higher and their inclusion would show that the rate had decreased. None of McDowell’s homicides was committed by a license holder, and he did not indicate which homicides had occurred in situations where a permit would have been required to carry a gun. McDowell has also claimed that D.C.’s murder rate decreased after its 1977 handgun ban. In fact, the rate tripled after the ban.24 The 43:1 claim: Based upon a small study of King’s County (Seattle), Washington, gun control supporters claim a gun in the home is “43 times more likely” to be used to kill a family member than a criminal.25 To reach that ratio, self-defense firearms uses are grossly undercounted by counting only cases in which criminals were killed. Most often, when guns are used to defend against criminals, the criminals are only scared off, captured or wounded. Kleck has called the 43:1 ratio and its variants “the most nonsensical statistic in the gun control debate.”26

So why should people be allowed guns?

This is a wild pig in the U.S.

Minority Report Technology

From Fiction to Reality:

The Garden of Eden and Foreign Policy

I read an interesting analysis once, that compared how the west perceives itself to the Garden of Eden myth. Nature is in balance, until Adam takes the forbidden fruit (insert Adam joke here) and then things get all screwed up. Well in Foreign Policy we tend to have an assumption that other cultures are natural and Imperialism and Colonialism screwed things up. In reality all these other cultures are products of practicing Imperialism or having it practiced on them (by Non-Westerners). For example Saudi Arabia has run one of the most successful Imperialism campaigns in recent history. Their Wahhabism strain of Islam which was confined to Saudi Arabia and considered radical and fringe fifty years ago, is now mainstream and dominant within Islam in most countries. They've done this through pure Imperialism, training Imams, building Mosques, setting up Institutes, giving scholarships etc. A campaign of Imperialism not for money or land but religious thought. Perhaps since many people in the west think they are the Imperialists (even though the West is the first in history to essentially bring an end to it) it goes against their narrative of history to recognize others as Imperialists.